Well this is a situation I've been talking about since September, 2008. Apparently the Democrats are now beginning their push to put back in place the "Fairness Doctrine" also known as the Censorship Doctrine. Currently in the media, Newspapers are predominately Left Wing, Talk Radio is Right Wing, and Television News is Largely Left Wing with the exception of Fox News. Anyways, the only real critics thus far of the Government has been Talk Radio, and this looks like a push to silence that criticism.

Quote:

BILL PRESS: Yeah, I mean, look: They have a right to say that. They’ve got a right to express that. But, they should not be the only voices heard. So, is it time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine?

SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else — I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves. I mean, our new president has talked rightly about accountability and transparency. You know, that we all have to step up and be responsible. And, I think in this case, there needs to be some accountability and standards put in place.

BILL PRESS: Can we count on you to push for some hearings in the United States Senate this year, to bring these owners in and hold them accountable?

SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): I have already had some discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that’s gonna happen. Yep.

And I consider Obama to be a typical politician, says one thing and does something else. Just look at his White House Staff, the stimulus bill he's pushing for, if not for Conservative Talk Radio and Fox News, people wouldn't know about the ridiculous amount of pork in this 900 billion dollar bill.

The reporter jumped over the rope. The rope was there, to block off overly-anxious supporters, and possible security threats.

I'm pointing out the serious lack of objectivity in Reporters these days, and how dangerous the situation in this country is right now. If reporters are falling all over themselves idolizing Obama, trying to get his autograph, then where is the hard-hitting investigation, where is the accountability?

The Secret Service detaining the reporter is routine and really is a nonissue, the fact the reporter was falling all over himself to get the autograph is the issue.

People can have their own opinions. Although I will admit that it does seem rather unproffessional. I prefer news/media that is generally neutral. Of course this may be near impossible because everyone has their own biases.

Just out of curiousity, what is the dangerous situation this country is in right now?
From your perspective.

People can have their own opinions. Although I will admit that it does seem rather unproffessional. I prefer news/media that is generally neutral. Of course this may be near impossible because everyone has their own biases.

Unprofessional is an understatement, it's more like a slobbering love-affair.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vikinor

Just out of curiousity, what is the dangerous situation this country is in right now?
From your perspective.

We are 1 senate seat from basically a 1 party system, it takes 60 votes in the senate to prevent a fillibuster.

The Democrats control the House where Nancy Pelosi isn't interested in bipartisanship and that stimulus bill is really nothing more than a 900 billion dollar+ left-wing wishlist and payoffs for unions.

The Senate is under the Control of Harry Reid, whom is also extremely Partisan. Then the Presidency is under the control of another Democrat.

The real kicker is that most of the media is more interested in Obama's abs than they are in doing their jobs.

If this piece of legislation gets pushed through you can bet we're well on the way to a Dictatorship. There are two big dangers for a dictatorship.

Freedom of speech, press, religion, etc.

Right to bear Arms

And this is an attack on the first amendment, next will come the 2nd Amendment under attack.

We are 1 senate seat from basically a 1 party system, it takes 60 votes in the senate to prevent a fillibuster.

If we apply this logic to the past, then this means that we had a one-party system when Bush was in power, correct?

Additionally, your whole little tirade has absolutely nothing to do with the topic, and is more "Obama is the Antichrist" crap. Quit being sensationalist, and quit being a damn drama queen. Obama is in power, and there's nothing you can do about it, except if assassination is up your alley.

The Democrats control the House where Nancy Pelosi isn't interested in bipartisanship and that stimulus bill is really nothing more than a 900 billion dollar+ left-wing wishlist and payoffs for unions.

counterpoint: you have no idea what you're talking about because you're a gop puppet.

...and yet, with the government and media controlled so utterly and completely by "the left", you poor persecuted right-wingers still managed to push through the PATRIOT ACT, the Guantanamo debacle, the paranoid delusion that Iraq had WMD's, the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and a dozen other things 'the left' didn't want, not to mention that you managed to re-elect Bush for another four years after his disastrous first Presidential period.

The facts of 2000-2008 fly in the face of your paranoid fantasies.

Quote:

If this piece of legislation gets pushed through you can bet we're well on the way to a Dictatorship.

Since you've apparently been living under a rock for eight years, let me bring you up to speed.

From 2000 to 2008, the US has been kidnapping people from abroad for then to hold them without charges, tortured prisoners, greatly increased the power of the authorities with the PATRIOT ACT, set up and run a prison in Cuba and elsewhere specifically to be outside of US jurisdiction, set up no-fly lists and put harmless dissenters on them... and it's accurate and balanced reporting that's going to bring democracy crashing down? Gimme a break.

If you wanted the US to be less like a dictatorship, you'd have voted Obama.

Quote:

There are two big dangers for a dictatorship.

1. Freedom of speech, press, religion, etc.
2. Right to bear Arms

Right, the world's only superpower and its 1.4 million people strong army wants to go one-party, but is prevented by a bunch of coach potatoes with pistols and rifles, against which its armoured brigades, air force, navy, satellites, cruise missiles and nuclear arsenal is worthless. The same army that's kicking butt (according to you right-wingers) against organized insurgents with more training and diverse weapons than the American people could ever hope to legalize for private use.... is terrified of a bunch of disorganized, paranoid people and their light firearms.

Indeed, it's a good thing you're allowed to possess AK-47's or those things, all 4700 of them, might have presented somewhat of a problem. Not to mention those pesky bombers and fighters. Luckily their pilots succumb easily to American partisans' 1337 snipah skillz.

Face it, Garfield, the 2nd amendment exists today to protect paranoid homeowners of lawbreakers. The time when the US didn't have an army and needed militias spread around its nation... are well and truly over. Today I doubt anyone could even plan for a revolution without getting caught and charged with treason - in part because the right has been so diligent in empowering the FBI and CIA with lots of new methods to spy on its own people while crying anti-americanism and unpatriotism whenever dissenters spoke up .

Quote:

Anyways, the only real critics thus far of the Government has been Talk Radio, and this looks like a push to silence that criticism.

The Fairness Doctrine works both ways. If you're concerned with all the media in the States being biased to the left, then I'd have thought you'd be for regulations making them objective, not against?

The 'News Media' got its 'heads handed to it' because one newspaper allegedly published an inappropriate article on the day of the September 11th attacks? Please explain.

Once again he's referring to the supposed 'unrepentant terrorist', Professor William 'Bill' Ayers, who did an interview with a newspaper, that coincidentally was published on the day of the 9/11 attacks.

Apparently it's their fault for not being able to tell the future (because he's conveniently forgetting the fact that those papers would have had to be published before the attacks happened).

Once again he's referring to the supposed 'unrepentant terrorist', Professor William 'Bill' Ayers, who did an interview with a newspaper, that coincidentally was published on the day of the 9/11 attacks.

Apparently it's their fault for not being able to tell the future (because he's conveniently forgetting the fact that those papers would have had to be published before the attacks happened).

It hit the shelves on 9/11/2001, that part is accurate, but your comment that he was a supposed unrepentant terrorist? Where the heck have you been, look up Weather Underground.

Anyways the New York Times article set off a public backlash because it looked to those whom lost family to the 9/11 hijackers that the NYT was siding with and sympathizing with the terrorists that flew the planes into the buildings. There was an enormous backlash that scared every other media agency to the point they were afraid that the public would react to their typical left-wing slant as sympathizing with Al Qaeda.

President Bush had nothing to do with it, and it wore off about 2003-2004. That's why the media was so hesitent to go after Bush in 2002, it had absolutely nothing to do with the President, it had to do with shooting themselves in the foot.

Furthermore when it was published and when the interview was given doesn't mean anything, it's when it hit the shelf that sparked the outrage.

It hit the shelves on 9/11/2001, that part is accurate, but your comment that he was a supposed unrepentant terrorist? Where the heck have you been, look up Weather Underground.

I have, and this point has been previously debated in Kavar's. I've no longer the inclination to discuss it further.

Quote:

Anyways the New York Times article set off a public backlash because it looked to those whom lost family to the 9/11 hijackers that the NYT was siding with and sympathizing with the terrorists that flew the planes into the buildings.

Which is a frankly ridiculous supposition to make - they conduct an interview with a 70's activist (or terrorist, or whichever slant one wishes to add), so automatically they're condoning Islamic Jihad?

I have, and this point has been previously debated in Kavar's. I've no longer the inclination to discuss it further.

Then don't bring it up, all I was talking about was the article, you're the one that brought up Ayers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Astor Kaine

Which is a frankly ridiculous supposition to make - they conduct an interview with a 70's activist (or terrorist, or whichever slant one wishes to add), so automatically they're condoning Islamic Jihad?

We're talking about how people reacted, and people aren't always logical. However it really wouldn't surprise me if they did condone Islamic Jihad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Astor Kaine

Again, it's ridiculous.

Maybe, maybe not.

Oh Aside from myself whom listens to Fox News did anyone else know Obama's White House is trying to seize control of the Census Bureau?

The reason this is dangerous is simple, you can use the census numbers to manipulate districts, which states hold what number of electoral votes, etc.

That is an extremely paranoid and alarmist stance. There is no evidence for Obama's administration to manipulate the census, and I'm sure it's just more of Fox News' typical anti-Obama tactics, as always.

That is an extremely paranoid and alarmist stance. There is no evidence for Obama's administration to manipulate the census, and I'm sure it's just more of Fox News' typical anti-Obama tactics, as always.

Explains why MSNBC also reported it but said it was perfectly understandible and a good thing...

People can have their own opinions. Although I will admit that it does seem rather unproffessional. I prefer news/media that is generally neutral. Of course this may be near impossible because everyone has their own biases.

While I didn't agree with the politics of Tim Russert, I respect the guy because he was, in my humble opinion, the last of objectivity in journalism.

Quote:

Just out of curiousity, what is the dangerous situation this country is in right now?
From your perspective.

Not sure of his perspective but mine:

Regarding the fairness doctrine itself, if Obama opposes it for real, then he has common sense. If Obama isn't for real, that would be foolish for him. However let us steer away from him and his Obama maniacs shall we?

So, Stanbow is pushing for it? He's a fool--unless he wants freedom of speech to be controlled.

A fairness doctrine would basically require all the media to adopt the opposite viewpoint for some significant air time period (50%, something like that?).
Since the majority of left wing media would be forced (I mean if it IS actually going to live up to its namesake and *TRULY* be fair) to adopt right wing viewpoints for a good bit of the time...well those on the left would be shooting themselves in the foot. Now instead of having the roughly 70/30 political monopoly over the media they have now, it would be 50/50 again.

Whoops.

If it has primarily the goal of weakening right wing talk radio in mind, this would backfire drastically. They would be doing themselves more harm than good to enact it just to lash out at conservative media.....unless they had something larger in mind? Perhaps, but I won't get into BS conspiracy theory.

If "fairness" has gotten a new definition I don't know about: to in fact destroy and eradicate any right wing media whatsoever so that only moderate and left remain. Then those pushing it are making a very smart decision for themselves.

To which I would respond: I thought the motto was "country first"? Guess I thought wrong. Say bye-bye to the first amendment.

As-is, the ball is in their home court the left has the advantage in media--don't ruin it for yourself.

So why wouldn't those on the right support it? That is because it gives government control over freedom of speech--how ever subtle it may be.
The subtle stuff is usually not watched carefully and snowballs over time. That's not domino fallacy--that's the way things happen, just anyone knows this.

Government control is a double edged sword and can cut both ways. Whose going to stop the government--more government? The people subjugated their freedom of speech? HAAAA! Kick them out of office after law is enacted? Too late.

Clarification: Cut both ways as in help or hinder, especially where freedoms are at stake--not just regulate to mutually benefit both parties.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle

...and yet, with the government and media controlled so utterly and completely by "the left", you poor persecuted right-wingers still managed to push through the PATRIOT ACT

I'd just like to clarify something:
Bush was more a best of both worlds self-serving RINO than conservative: Don't think that *every* conservative blindly, unquestioningly, and absolutely embraced it. I remember how (then) lesser known right wing radio talk show hosts (Laura Ingram, Mark Levin, Michael Savage) were lambasting radio host Rush Limbaugh for his absolute support of it and the president--paying no heed to the way it takes away personal freedoms.

While the right wing is for better protections, yes, the right wing is also against bigger government (an argument the left uses often in numerous areas). There were conservatives torn up about it and quite wary that it gave so many indiscriminant government controls over things and snuffed out personal freedoms.

The media has always been to the left. News corporations are their own entities. They can, just like anything else, choose what to report and how to report it. Even if they use freedom of speech to deprecate freedom of speech. Again protected under the first amendment.

Quote:

The Fairness Doctrine works both ways. If you're concerned with all the media in the States being biased to the left, then I'd have thought you'd be for regulations making them objective, not against?

Because not all on the right are not that short sighted--to do something to potentially sacrifice freedom of speech just to get a quick and easy advantage over leftist media monopoly. Even a clear cut victory in media means nothing if the principle on which it is founded is sacrificed and destroyed.

Please try to understand the apprehension that, while something ideally sounds nice on paper, S*** (quite often) does happen. Practically--that would be another matter.

PEOPLE run the government, so for the same reason capitalism unfettered becomes monopoly, government can also become a fascistic nightmare: human nature.

Counter that by enforcing it with machines and computers? AND What ultimately gives the orders to those machines, and programs the computers? (Thanks in advance.)

Regulations only seem to work when there is (regardless of political alignment) strong leadership and management that doesn't look the other way.
Selective enforcement and copping an attitude saying that something is "unenforceable" is how it begins to break down. We wouldn't even know about that happening until it is too late and the goniffs are already securely in office and screwing things up nicely for us all.

If regulations to keep things ACTUALLY fair in media were not subject to selective enforcement by weasel senators (that'll be the day)--I would be all for it. Untouchable will never happen.

A big reason for corruption is bribes? Why stop there? Half the reason bribes succeed is due to lack of character in taking bribes. Don't discount individual integrity.

"So what's the big deal, enact it already."
OH you mean like the patriot act you accused every conservative of being totally for? --Without review and revision to ensure it actually is fair, with some guarantee it won't be ****ed up by some weasel for personal gain? No thanks. LEAVE the first amendment alone.

On the subject of the Iraq war, the point is that the Left as well as the Right supported the war at the start, which is why it happened, NOT because of some "right wing bias" in the media or because somehow the GOP tricked everyone because they were really in charge.

I find it funny that some people think everything will be peachy keen if their party of choice (of the big two) gets in power. I anticipate (bad) business as usual, but that's the cynic in me. I'm sick and tired of the two party system we have that gives people the illusion of choice, and the fanatical blind loyalty it so often inspires.

Frankly, a lot of people feel comfortable censoring speech they don't agree with, but we need to resist that temptation and realize that free speech benefits all. The trouble is that the mass media on television is controlled by basically a handful of wealthy men. I get most of my news from the internet, because at least there I can see a range of reporting, not just what a handful of corporations want to spin.

Talk radio if it were forced to be 50/50 split, would in fact just cause stations to lose money during the "Liberal" side. I mean technically, you could have two stations. Air 3 hours of Rush on one station, and on the other, Liberal Nation. Swap in Liberal Talk on the first station, and bring in Ann Coulter on the second. The bad thing is that there isn't a lot of call for liberal talk radio. It goes against free speech to force radio stations to air what their listeners do not want to hear. It would be like forcing a country station to air rap for the same amount of time as they do country. The listeners decide what gets air time(by voting with their feet and/or wallets).

On the subject of the Iraq war, the point is that the Left as well as the Right supported the war at the start, which is why it happened, NOT because of some "right wing bias" in the media or because somehow the GOP tricked everyone because they were really in charge.

That's what the left would like everyone to Believe, just like they'd like everyone to believe that the GOP was supposedly behind 9/11. It was faulty intelligence, that's why we went into Iraq.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurgan

I find it funny that some people think everything will be peachy keen if their party of choice (of the big two) gets in power. I anticipate (bad) business as usual, but that's the cynic in me. I'm sick and tired of the two party system we have that gives people the illusion of choice, and the fanatical blind loyalty it so often inspires.

No, there is are actual differences between the parties. One of the parties is all for free speech only if that speech but only if that speech agrees with them (the Democrats). The other is actually for free speech (Republicans).

And don't try to contradict me there because all of the people supporting the return of the Censorship Doctrine are Democrats, and the people that threw it out were Republicans.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurgan

Frankly, a lot of people feel comfortable censoring speech they don't agree with, but we need to resist that temptation and realize that free speech benefits all. The trouble is that the mass media on television is controlled by basically a handful of wealthy men. I get most of my news from the internet, because at least there I can see a range of reporting, not just what a handful of corporations want to spin.

Well, the only news factions that Conservatives have is talk radio, and that is what this legislation is geared to target.

When Republicans controlled the legislature and executive branch they didn't try to censor the network media, the network media and newspapers shot themselves in the foot. The situation here is the Dems are trying to shut down free speech and allow illegal immigrants to vote as well as dead people, to fundamentally take over the country. (Not saying all Dems want that, but the ones in congress seem to)

Fact is the Democrats control the bulk of the media, the house of reps, the senate, and the Presidency, we also have some Supreme Court Justices that aren't in good health of late.

When the Republicans were in charge, the media wasn't in control of the Republicans. That's the difference.

That's what the left would like everyone to Believe, just like they'd like everyone to believe that the GOP was supposedly behind 9/11. It was faulty intelligence, that's why we went into Iraq.

Faulty intelligence or not, the Bush administration still had no reason to go into Iraq, especially when their exit strategy was poorly planned.

Quote:

No, there is are actual differences between the parties. One of the parties is all for free speech only if that speech but only if that speech agrees with them (the Democrats). The other is actually for free speech (Republicans).

So really, Republicans are good, and Democrats are bad, right?

Quote:

(Not saying all Dems want that, but the ones in congress seem to)

For some reason, I doubt that you really mean that, especially with the tone of your previous paragraph.

Quote:

When Republicans controlled the legislature and executive branch they didn't try to censor the network media, the network media and newspapers shot themselves in the foot. The situation here is the Dems are trying to shut down free speech and allow illegal immigrants to vote as well as dead people, to fundamentally take over the country.

So, Democrats are out to kill infants, control the media, and allow the country to be taken over by foreign powers. That's a very overblown perception. Actually, it sounds a lot like blaming society's ills on the Jews and the commies. Hm.

Quote:

Fact is the Democrats control the bulk of the media, the house of reps, the senate, and the Presidency, we also have some Supreme Court Justices that aren't in good health of late.

And? That's happened many other times in the US's history, and the country didn't collapse into anarchy. The Republicans also had a great amount of control before, and nothing horrible happened as well. Just because someone who disagrees with you is in power doesn't mean you have to cry "totalitarianism!".

Quote:

When the Republicans were in charge, the media wasn't in control of the Republicans. That's the difference.

Ever seen what happened after 9/11 and the Iraq War? The entire media was licking Bush's boots.

Faulty intelligence or not, the Bush administration still had no reason to go into Iraq, especially when their exit strategy was poorly planned.

Remember the President that gutted the CIA was Clinton not Bush.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PastramiX

So really, Republicans are good, and Democrats are bad, right?

No, just the ones being supported by MoveOn.org

Quote:

Originally Posted by PastramiX

For some reason, I doubt that you really mean that, especially with the tone of your previous paragraph.

Explains why I actually voted for a few Democrats at the local level...

Quote:

Originally Posted by PastramiX

So, Democrats are out to kill infants, control the media, and allow the country to be taken over by foreign powers. That's a very overblown perception. Actually, it sounds a lot like blaming society's ills on the Jews and the commies. Hm.

See Nancy Pelosi's defense of money for contraception and abortion in the stimulus bill, that it would help stimulate the economy by cutting costs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PastramiX

And? That's happened many other times in the US's history, and the country didn't collapse into anarchy. The Republicans also had a great amount of control before, and nothing horrible happened as well. Just because someone who disagrees with you is in power doesn't mean you have to cry "totalitarianism!".

The Republicans don't have control of the media.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PastramiX

Ever seen what happened after 9/11 and the Iraq War? The entire media was licking Bush's boots.

You know this must be the millionth time you or another of your cohorts have brought that up, and I keep having to point out the same thing that the media shot themselves in the foot thanks to the New York Times article. They were skittish after that article and the public calling for their heads. Bush had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Then why did Bush get it wrong with Afghanistan? Additionally, why did the Clinton administration have credible proof on bin Laden's current whereabouts, but when the Bush administration went into office, did absolutely nothing about it?

Quote:

No, just the ones being supported by MoveOn.org

So it's only the liberal Democrats who are vile. Gotcha.

Quote:

See Nancy Pelosi's defense of money for contraception and abortion in the stimulus bill, that it would help stimulate the economy by cutting costs.

It's an earmark; every politician puts them in legislature. It's happened for hundreds of years,a nd it will continue to happen. And contraception isn't infanticide.

Quote:

The Republicans don't have control of the media.

No one in government has direct control of the media. Their parent corporations influence their news outlets, buy catering to the current government in power, so that their lobbyists can receive government kickbacks to reign free.

Quote:

You know this must be the millionth time you or another of your cohorts have brought that up, and I keep having to point out the same thing that the media shot themselves in the foot thanks to the New York Times article. They were skittish after that article and the public calling for their heads. Bush had absolutely nothing to do with it.

I don't give a damn about the New York Times; the media was absolutely worshiping bush after 9/11, regardless of any sort of article. Anyone watching the coverage could have easily deduced it.

And thank you for tying me to some massive liberal conspiracy to control LF.

Then why did Bush get it wrong with Afghanistan? Additionally, why did the Clinton administration have credible proof on bin Laden's current whereabouts, but when the Bush administration went into office, did absolutely nothing about it?

You're only giving part of the story, Clinton scrubbed a mission where Bin Laden could have had his head blown off, but they had to abort because Clinton didn't authorize it. Bush had just arrived in office when 9/11 happened and the CIA was in pieces. Remember 8 years of Clinton, and Bush had less then one year, he took office in January of 2001 with the CIA in pieces.

Also care to explain one of Clinton's aides running off with classified documents in their pants.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PastramiX

So it's only the liberal Democrats who are vile. Gotcha.

The Democrats in Washington primarily are vile.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PastramiX

It's an earmark; every politician puts them in legislature. It's happened for hundreds of years,a nd it will continue to happen. And contraception isn't infanticide.

Did you even watch the interview Pelosi had with ABC News? If not, I'd suggest you go find it because I saw it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PastramiX

No one in government has direct control of the media. Their parent corporations influence their news outlets, buy catering to the current government in power, so that their lobbyists can receive government kickbacks to reign free.

I never said they had direct control, I said one political party has control of most of the media, because the overwhelming Majority of News Media people are registered Democrats.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PastramiX

I don't give a damn about the New York Times; the media was absolutely worshiping bush after 9/11, regardless of any sort of article. Anyone watching the coverage could have easily deduced it.

No they weren't, they were just afraid of the public calling for their heads after the New York Times fiasco. There is quite a bit of documentation to back me up on that point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Astor Kaine

That's utter rubbish (about the GOP being behind 9/11). I'd suggest that, as with all conspiracy theories, you discard it.

See Code Pink, MoveOn.org, Rosie O'Donnel, Michael Moore, and some Democrat Members of Congress

Its hilarious how the patriot act, etc all pass under you radar, but now that the democrats are in charge you are all up in arms about every tiny detail.

Admit it, you're just sore because you are on the other side of the board after 8 years. Take this time to learn some empathy, as you are now in the same position that democrats were with Bush. Better yet, try being more bipartisan and you wont feel like you are being overwhelmed so much (And no, you are not bipartisan by any single definition of the word).

But if you are going to keep this up, you may as well go all the way and admit that you think half of the country is literally out to get you. The left is turning you communist, the ACLU is trying to turn you godless, and feminists are going to cage you up for being male.

You may hate the left, but you are far right. Extremists are the reason extremists exist on the other side. If you want to get rid of the far left, then stop being far right. You do yourself, your party, and your opinions no good by being so far on one side of the spectrum that you downright refuse to acknowledge them as fellow human beings.